have you gook led something you didn't want your spouse or boss to know about? looking up divorce lawyers or a medical condition or did youloo post something about partyingdio last night or skipping work yesterday?thi social networks are ewe big tis social n and addictive. u my case in point is jason, poin police trying to serve a warrant on him in utah so tee hook aon hostage and posted on facebooke, "cute hostage" and posted that on facebook.tartingto thev swat team came, and whenmot there was hea shootout, he a friended 15 people on his facebook page, posted six status ad updates, and he also had friends post things like on the wall,us like, got her in the bushes,frst telling where the guys were, and just like a big budget movie,teh
theer cops break in, shootout, a goes to the hospital, the hostage is fine, but now theyakc are tryinomg to figure out whetr they can prosecute people fromes telling -- who told him wherebua the reswat team members were. you know, facebook is addictiveo a billion people on facebookw, making it the third largest nation in the world after india bo and okchina. th has cease and desist citizens, -- it has citizens, its ownits ow approaches, a and people are drawn to it like any new nation because of the sense of freedom. you could be an ordinary person, a scientist in a crowd sources project or could be a journalis reporting on what's going on in the world or if you're starting a band, you can, you know, get that with fans.hrough you can use facebook, twitter, youtube, and, you know, tolea
topple a government. gove it's harder to put down aardto revolution occurring over the web than kill a charismatic leader or bomb headquarters. you can make progress by the way it's spread out, but if you're . itizen on facebook, you may not realize what you are getting yourself into. in part it's because facebook's what you terms 'rof service shift without warning. servi shift initially when you joined, they said we'll just share with your friends, people you designate. in 2009, they changed it to make your friends' pictures and names public. well, they were american citizens with friends and relatives in teheran, and thesen as ricans were critics of the iranian government. what happened was, you know, without their knowledge or of consent, the pictures areat public. their friends and relatives wers be beat up, were jailed, and soiens forth. something even as simple as your friends can make a difference.ls
edin the past years, there's ben highs and lows in twitter, andd yo've seen the arab spring.d, we've seen the un, you know, settling events around general petraeus and congressman wieners and use of social networks can wreak havoc in your life. unlike vegas, what happens onli. facebook, doesn't stay ons, what facebook. here's the toop five don'tsi'm g currently. number one, ifon you are a male judge, don't friend the hot sex' female defendant and tell her how to plead in your courtroom on facebook. don' was done by a 54-year-old judge in georgia, and it was uncovered these hundreds of messages between him and a defendant in the courtroom, including one agreeing to pay part of her rent, and anotherinl one where she offer him a year't worth of free massages and saids
"lol, i'm not really trying tond bribe you." [laughter] aloud, i number two, if you're a bigamist, don't let wife number two post your new wedding photo on facebook in a place where wife number one will see it. [laughter]whoto that happened. one married john in a dream wedding in italy. the pictures so beautiful the company that aringed it had thes on the website.anged it she has two children. she thinks she's in a great marriage, and then on facebook,w she stumbles across a picture or heria then husband dressed as a prince at disney world marrying a princess.ed a you know, he was committing bigamy, and he was not even a mormon. number three, if you are a soldier, don't disclose on facebook where you will benu bombing the next day.cebook wheu
[laughter]xt when israeli soldiers gained the right to use social networks, there was a big campaign ininede dsrael, and every base hadnetwkn posters with enemy of the state, the iranian president, the syria president, the leader ofha ene hezbollah, and imt said, "not everybody is your friend." i' okay? the lure of facebook, and its sen trailty is great ntrality tos . when israeli soldiers were deployed to the west bank to capture militants suspected of planning attacks on israel, one soldier actually posted on facebook that on wednesday we clean up this particular town and the rest of the post told about the planned raid, as well as the soldier's unit. as a result, the defense forces
had to call off the raid in the court-martial of a soldier. also, don't check your facebook page on the victim's computer and leave it open. so the guy makes off with all these diamonds in this woman's house. and it's so addictive that he can't leave the house to go to his car and uses smart phone. he goes on his facebook page and then doesn't close it. the west virginia police found him right away. number five is do not tweet how boring your new job is going to be. a 22-year-old woman gets offered a great job at cisco and she tweets cisco just offered me a job, now i have to get a steady paycheck while hating my work. someone at the company --
companies wrote to her that you are fired and we here at cisco are well-versed in the web. [laughter] also, no drunken photos. don't criticize your boss on facebook. keep your clothes on their photos as well. all of these problems have been. you can go on a website. we know what you're doing.com. it started as a way to provoke people. it has real-time feeds for people who are doing drugs and hate their boss and you can see it. and so can potential college admission officers. one in four looked at facebook for social networking applications. i don't know if you follow the case of a 24-year-old schoolteacher. she went on a vacation in
europe. she posted 700 pictures of herself, three of them she had beer in her hand or one in her hand and innocent photos. she is on a tour of a guinness factory and she lost her job as a teacher. you think that your 18-year-old or 21 or older child or grandchild can just take down a facebook page when they go job hunting, there is a company, social intelligence inc., which saves the last seven years of facebook pages. so then it becomes available to their employer when they are 22 years old. that, we have heard about. when i started doing research, i had no idea there was this whole other aspect, which was that what you do on the web is followed by data miners. i am a writer. i love dictionary.com. i've written books, but it puts
200 tracking mechanisms on your computer to follow where you go. google makes $36 billion a year, 90% of its income, from selling information. what does that mean? me that i look of a medical condition that health insurers can get that information and use it to discriminate. even the advertisements aren't innocent. when young people say they are going to commit suicide on the web, advertisements actually top of that they dial this number and get medications at a cheaper rate. sometimes we don't even know the surveillance capabilities of the technology that we use. so in pennsylvania, a high school gave free laptops to all their students and until the
students or their parents that they could turn on the camera from the school. they were only supposed to turn on if a laptop was going to take a picture of the feet. they took 50,000 photos of these high school students. and where do you have your laptop? you have it while you're sleeping, we go into the shower and so forth. it came to light when a principal slapped on a picture and said we see are using drugs, and he was shot. it was mike and ike candies. all this information can be used in ways that can benefit us in some ways, but also, whether you get a job, or based on your credit and insurance, it could be a digital doppelgänger. when you do traveling across the web. -- insurers are being told,
don't bother with those expensive urine and blood tests if someone qualifies for life insurance. just look at their social network page. these are things that could get you in trouble. if you commute to work, you eat fast food. you have friends who are skydivers. because they say behavior is contagious. all those things are supposed to mean that you are too risky. another one is an avid reader. that's like all of us here. to be reading on a treadmill or something, it doesn't mean that were sedentary. it doesn't mean that we are more sedentary than people playing video games. the reading is good for you. there are other medical evidence
studies that suggest that reading is good for you. in the digital age, you have zero privacy, get over it. i'm here to say that that was said about every technology in the past 125 years. when the portable camera was developed. in 1888. all of a sudden you have no control over your image because you could go into a studio and pose and wear your best clothes. close. now, you could be caught anywhere. there were editorials in the 1880s that said have you seen the kodak film, which can get you in a bad position of the post office. but instead of saying get over it, many state laws about privacy. when supreme court dealt with the case about gps, the supreme
court didn't say, hey, we have technology, get over privacy, they said -- and this is a supreme court that doesn't agree on anything, they said privacy is important. something even this minor is where you are to give away information about whether you know it or not abortion clinic, a competitor to your bosses, this information is being tracked on the web through smart phones actually have huge ramifications. it's what we do? in europe, they actually have protective laws. you can find out what data aggregators are talking about you, if you have wrong information, you can correct it. so i might be googling diabetes or a friend or a product, and not for, it doesn't mean that i'm unhealthy, but the federal trade commission is actually
considering having a do not track regulation. sort of like the do not call list. i will end up with something that the trade commission that when we were on a panel together. the chairman said that he thinks the do not track mechanism is going to be really popular. and then we can get it pushed as a society. dave barry had written about the do not call list, that was the second greatest government initiative after the elder scandal. maybe the do not track list will be right up there. thank you. [applause] >> i have to say that's the first time i'm glad to be the
age i am. i'm too old to post on temperatures on facebook of myself to let anybody find them . oh, them think they could buy my old college pictures, yuck. anyway, that was such an amazing story. i am a journalist in washington and i want to tell you a little bit about why i came to write a book with a title like this, "the end of men and the rise of women." i have two sons, have a husband, have a father and a brother. i love them all. so i see that the title is very aggressive. nonetheless, how did this come about for me? i will start by telling you the story that inspired me to write this book. my family and i have been vacationing for a long time in this working-class town near washington. one year i went there and i felt
like, where were the men? it seemed like they were gone. they weren't on the street during their construction work like they normally work, they didn't seem to be in a church like they normally wear. it was just like a science-fiction moment. it's like, what happened to all the men? i became curious about that. because i am a reporter, you know that once you get an idea in your head and you really can't let go. as a friend of this woman in the supermarket, her name was bethany, i bumped into her and started talking. i said, what's up? are you married? she was not married. though she had a daughter. and she began to talk to me about the guy was the father of her daughter and how -- she herself was working, she was going to school to become a nurse, she was raising a child and she began to talk about
things in a disparaging way. which is well we don't live with calvin because he would be another mouth to feed. that was her argument. of course, she and i had a sisterhood bonding at that moment. but i wanted to know who calvin lies. so i got his phone number and calvin and i started at become friends. what happened to these men? what's going to happen to them? i don't know if you know that old ladies home journal column, can this marriage be saved, where you try to figure out the right advice to get a couple back together, but that is the role i began to play for calvin and bethany. i would call him up and say, what about this job and doing the singer that. i kept trying to get them back together. until one day, the lightbulb went off in my head.
which is what started this book to me. they are not going to go back to the way they were. he is not going to reenter the picture and take his seat at the table. something had shifted in the dynamic between the two of them, the way it has for so many american couples where she really did perceive yourself as the head of his household and a person that was running everything and he perceived her as her oppressor. so it really shifted as it had for so many american couples. that's when it occurred to me that a seismic shift that happen and the power dynamics between men and women that have economic implications on social implications, and i started listening to it more deeply. what was in 2009. 2000 minus a very good year for changes in american culture. partly because that was the year when women became the majority of the american workforce, which is an amazing change. when i was a child, working woman, the women in the pantsuit
was such a cool and interesting thing. there were several sitcoms. here she goes to work. look at her carry a briefcase. it was a very interesting phenomenon. and over time we have gotten so used to it that women are half of the workforce. that happened? a lot of things changed. we moved from being a manufacturing economy where men had a natural advantage. he did not have to go to college, you could just be a guy. especially if you have a lot of skills and you can have a good existence. that became difficult over time. the economy began to value things like getting a degree and open communication and certain kinds of emotional intelligence. it valued men and women in some sense they gave the value to women. then there was the traveling sisterhood of the economy, which as women at the top started to take over her fashions that men used to dominate like lawyers,
accountants, pharmacists, they open up jobs at the bottom -- things that wisest of your for free. child care, elder care, teaching and all of these things that used to be unpaid wives work. these became paid work and so you have this kind of momentum where women entered the economy more and more. over time women have become much better at earning college degrees than men. i can't explain why this is. it is not that women are smarter than men, but there are a whole bunch of things that happened from a young age two when women are older that allow them to get more college degrees than men. now, for every 2 degrees, women earned 3 degrees for every 2 degrees that amendments.
would have said that about them when they werei in college. it was a different attitude. the differences were the idea os plastic women and cardboard man. what do i mean by that?wo mom or dad or mitt romney or al gore. i mean, it's a a historicalr alm description if you look at what happened over the last century.i they stopped working when theyat had small children. y got marrie stopped working when they had small children and all these professions women when do which were considered men's professions. women have broken through every one of those barriers where men
move a lot more slowly in what is acceptable for them to do. 1-woman who is a critic of mine agrees with this point and calls it the masculine mystique. what she is referring to in 1962, feminine mystique, we had this idea we had unnecessarily restricted women and they were allowed to do a few things to be considered feminine and maybe now doing a similar thing to men. we have restricted what is okay for men to do and be considered masculine and sweeney to expand at a little bit. initially i started thinking about this as an economic argument. in the year-and-a-half or two i have been interested in the cultural implications. or young people, young people in different parts of america working-class couples, a lead couples, and talk about a couple
of them now. this chapters about the hook up culture. i can't quite gauge the age of this crowd, and the last couple days talking to college students all i knew i didn't have to explain the hook up culture but you never know. let's just say in short end, are having in drug division to an relationships without a long-term commitment. it doesn't mean sex or 1-night stand, or have commitments, more that you are loosely connected. my first chapter follows a group of girls who are elite business school girls who talk in ways that my mother would have killed me and locked me in a closet of i talked the way they do about sex. nonetheless i was perfectly seeking out girls who are sexually aggressive. most people see women entirely as victims in the oak up culture
but i have a different view of it. based on a study done by two professors who were my age and camped out in a college dorm for four years, years they lived in a college dorm. imagine doing that. what they discovered was even though these girls had complaints day-to-day, guys don't want to commit, they are losers, the truth was that was the young women who were avoiding getting pinned down into long-term relationships at that point in their lives. they were thinking about establishing themselves in their careers like being economically independent so even though they had a lot of romantic complaints in some ways this lack of path toward marriage for those ten years was serving them well because it was allowing them to get ahead in life. that was one way i take a different view of things. the second thing i write about his marriage.
because of a rise of women, marriage has taken different paths in this country. for the college-educated we have a new model of marriage i call the see-saw marriage. this example is the obamas. they have a classic see-saw marriage where the men and women take turns being the family's main provider over the course of the marriage and this has led to a happy stable marriages, very low divorce rate among the college-educated, very long-lasting marriages, low likelihood of raising children alone. michele obama was a health care executive making a lot of money and barack obama was in law school doing public service and they have switched places where he is the main guy and she is the supporter and this is a pretty common pattern of marriage among the college-educated and it has proved to be a stable, good model where as for everybody else in america for the 70% of americans who don't have a college degree marriage is disappearing. people are not getting married. if they are getting married they
have high divorce rate and rates of single motherhood are astronomical. it is largely because women are doing everything and the men are dropping out of society. they are not finding themselves -- i reported this in this town in alabama, a hard time getting on their feet figuring out how to remake themselves and what you see is a lot of men going on disability or just not dropping out of the work force. we have the lowest labor force participation rate among men they have had since the 1940s. i want to close off by explaining what the -- what "the end of men" is not which is useful because i have been talking about for a couple months and shocked at what people think it is. i will say what it is not. this is not a feminist manifesto despite the pink writing and yellow cover and weird stomping on your grave feel on the book's cover. if he read the book you will see the changes i am describing are not -- you read these and think this is heartbreak like not
something we want in america. i think of myself as more of an anthropologist and looking at the things that are changing and trying to describe to you here is what it looks like. it looks really great in some parts of america and really terrible in other parts and we have a long way to go. the second thing "the end of men" does not is delusional. i live in washington d.c. so i know the places where women do not have power and where the problems are in terms of child care and what happens to women at the top which i address in a chapter called the talk. but i write a lot about how this has been going on for 40 years. we haven't turned the world upside down. parts of america look like they're upside-down when you look at relationships but we are long way getting there and i am -- you can see the election as a current example is something profound happened in the last election not just because obama won but the way he won. he won in a way which really changed our ideas about who is
the minority and to is the victim which is something you write about a lot. this idea that women put him in power. we had this -- the largest number of female senators we have ever had in history. we had new hampshire the most politically obsessed state in the entire country run by at matriarchy. you have to think hard about what does it mean to be a minority in this country of the so-called minorities can band together and put a president in power and what we used to think of as the patriarchy and people in power vote for another person and he doesn't get elected. we need to think hard about who is in charge when the labor movement is moving and the last thing i will say is what i want to happen after "the end of men" is not for all men to go to the moon and disappear and be happy matriarchy like new hampshire. that is not what i mean. what i would like to happen is for us to use our imagination
and expand ideas of what it is okay for men and women to do and not be considered and masculine or and feminine. for men that means allowing men to take on more domestic roles for different jobs. lots of men think is absolutely a woman's job to be a teacher. i would never be a teacher or nurse because only women do that. that turns out to be a news around their neck because those of the only jobs available, medical center or the government. just to relax our notions a bit my son who hates the title of this book, there is, he is back there. if my son decides he wants to take care of his children or work four days a week or engage to somebody who makes more money than he does that shouldn't be a big deal, nobody should ask him questions about it or wonder about it or write a book about it, nobody should do a newspaper
story about it but no one should it demands a what is wrong with that guy? they should think it is great. that is what i hope for in the next phase for the next generation. [applause] >> we should for together because i think you have entered a lot of the questions in my book. i have written a book with the provocative title, it could have been called the end of white people what is the matter with white men, the other two possibility synergistic with yours. i did write a book with a provocative title and the title has at least three meanings, probably more. the title, the meaning we get to the most in our discussion these days is "what's the matter with white people," 60% of them voted for mitt romney and 90% of the
republican party today is white. how did that happen, why did it happen and what does it mean in a society that is 52% white? we have been talking a lot about that. what i do in the book is try to look with compassion. i am white -- some best friends are white. and the base of the democratic party, seeing the base of the republican party. and i do that through the story of my irish catholic working-class family and we have schism in the family between people lucky enough to go to college and the people who went to college tended -- they became democrats and the people who didn't go to college where republicans. this isn't a matter of being smart. it is a matter of who was more energetic. is a matter of privilege.
when i was younger i wrote about this, i could make it sound as though it was a matter of intelligence like smart people became democrats. as i got more involved in the book i began to think liberalism could be class privilege for some people too. i became interested in the way republican party peeled off a chunk of my family in the 60s and 70s and made the reagan democrats. first they were nixon democrats, people live who voted for john f. kennedy voted for nixon in 70-72. one of them was my mother. she stopped telling us who she was voting for. said there was a secret ballot. so my father and i knew that meant she probably noted -- voted for nixon. what i saw trying to piece together what happened in my family, my father stated died in the wall civil-rights liberal and my mother although i don't think she ever called herself a republican was a little ashamed of voting for nixon did, there
was a sense of fear, the unraveling, the movement of the 60s were fantastic and a lot of us in this room, something else that happened in the 60s was there was a lot of turmoil. we saw a change in the economy we didn't recognize coming and people were able to mistake racial change and social change for why jobs for these working-class men were going away. i saw in my own family that my mother, one brother was in new york city cop and one was a firefighter, they were working in the increasingly dangerous city and there was a sense that change had moved too fast and we needed to put it back in the bottle if we could. this is the sense that republicans exploited. i like to remind people that five days after lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act,
riots erupted in flames. it was the beginning of the nixone n\ where the l.a. police chief blamed the turmoil on those people, meaning democrats, too much too soon and they told black people about racism and they were being mistreated rather than they were being mistreated. in some of my research i found the lyndon johnson right afterwards said i have done more for these people than any other president, how could they be doing this to me? there was a sense of awe cause and effected between beginning to reckon with allegis the -- legacy of slavery and the unrest that followed. i write a lot about race in my book but when i look backpacking actually the war had more to do with parts of the country than race and those of us who were anti-war were on the right side
but we became judge by a violent fringe -- i don't want to say with good reason but we can talk about, it was a bad war. i didn't mean all americans were bad people but democrats got associated with a critique of the country that was both fair but probably went too far. what i fear when we talk about a golden age in my subtitle, it is talking about what hanna rosin is discussing. there was a golden age for white men, we use -- this is a profound and tricky thing, has become a kind of social and political amelia among a lot of white people about the way government played a role in making their rise possible, that my grandparents were able to rise from desperate poverty come conover as irish immigrants on the eve of the great depression to own a couple homes by the
time they retired and their rig decisions after the great depression that we were going to flatten income inequality and raise taxes and build a vast middle class. we put a lot of money into a public sector that did several things at once. it provided services whether it was public education, teaching children, so welfare services, it is like a dirty word, completely wrong nowadays to have public sector jobs and to think of society and the things we need to do with each other as a good side benefit, not a side benefit the good side benefit would be we created jobs. a lot of the white middle class was built on government work and extending new government jobs. too many white people don't see they had any help or that held that god didn't go to african-americans and latinoss. we had a cultural and political
divide where people have different versions of history and what happened and it makes it very hard for us to talk about this. the other meaning of hanna rosin "what's the matter with white people," hanna rosin gets to the best, a republican critique comes out in mitt romney's 47% comments and his notion that obama gave up a bunch of gifts and that is why we voted for him. i'm waiting for my gift. anybody get a gift? anybody in the room? [applause] >> something interesting happened. the great fear, the reagan revolution, charles murray wrote in the 80s in a book called losing ground, it tried to put facts behind ronald reagan saying we fought a war on poverty and poverty won. he basically argued the welfare state had hurt poor people particularly african-americans
by discouraging marriage, encouraging laziness, encouraging people to have children out-of-wedlock. he put all the blame on poverty programs. as i was writing this book charles murray writes another book called coming apart:the state of white america and charles murray is now basically saying the same thing about white lower class, really working class men, white men, that he was saying about african-americans in the 80s, that they are working less and getting married less frequently not because of any change in the economy or in culture but because they can be supported by government. he also blamed feminism and that is very interesting. he really has an analysis that says working-class white people struggling because they are lazy and don't get married and hook up. so i started to think white people are starting to say the
same thing about you, so mitt romney's 47% remark where he was talking about a majority of that 47%, the vast majority are white people and i am not sure the white people got the message. some of them did. the third thing, the third meaning of the title takes back what i just said that white people didn't get the message. what is -- "what's the matter with white people" is also asking what is the matter with white people, aren't we part of our multiracial future? i talk in the book a lot about what i think in the end was a very successful obama strategy and the notion that people of color have more in common with one another than with any white people seemed both not true as well as politically destructive. i didn't write this book to start to feel like a white advocate and i am not but i think liberals have to be
careful about the way we talk about white people than even the white vote. jews voted 70% 4 barack obama. most jews are white. young white women basically slightly favored the president. college-educated white women favored the president. there's also sad to say real geographic split. if you take the south and disaggregate the south, not talking about florida. [laughter] >> you guys did a great. if you disaggregate the south, white people don't look so bad. barack obama probably won't up getting thirty million white votes, something like that. the notion that we would allow ourselves as liberal advocates to lump a group of people together in that way is self-destructive as well as not very nice. i came to feel more i work on
these issues that particularly white liberals like me, i used to be one of them, are really -- get a lot of self-esteem from thinking we are the good ones. those uneducated white people are the problem. when in fact it is a problem of class. the positive note i will end on is really president obama wound up not needing a fire wall. he won big. but he had a fire wall in ohio and wisconsin and michigan and illinois and iowa where the auto rescue gave white working-class people, men and women, a sense that government was on their side and could do something for them and their families that government hadn't done for a long time. i think part of the story of the migration of white working-class people from the democratic party in all honesty is not that they
went and become the party of black people which is what some white people think that it was also they stopped being the party of government and the party that makes positive changes in the lives of average people and started cozying up to big business and particularly becoming the party of wall street. i think we can learn. i am not saying we will have an auto rescue where we will go around and have government intervention in every sector of the economy but what mitt romney laid out in his remarks to disappointed donors a few days ago is very interesting. president obama didn't talk about white people or the auto bailout which is very interesting. probably a fourth spot since he said let them go bankrupt. the president is making people's lives better. he improved his position on immigration. he is reaching out to college-educated women around health care. not just contraception but
health care generally. he came out for gay marriage. these are not gifts. these are things we expect from government. we band together to do the things we can't do alone. the notion that government doesn't deliver material benefits for people is crazy. and conversely as mitt romney won his gifts would have been to the top 1% and we have been gifteding, one% for the last 30 years which is why the middle class has fallen apart. i feel like although our rhetoric sometimes leave out white people we can look at the midwest and fire wall and say how will people vote if they feel it makes a difference in their lives and in the lives of children and that is what should we talking about and looking for. i'm going to sit down so the audience can ask a question. [applause] >> thank you.
>> there are so many of you, we are going to limit people to one question. one question. and please ask a question, don't make a statement. we don't want to hear your biography. we just want questions. [applause] >> my question is -- generally speaking do you folks realize that white irish catholic for instance white british have created a lot of the problems? >> what do you mean? i am not sure what you mean. >> the irish people here were considered inferior when they arrived.
i think one of the mentioned the irish people year. let me put a little more to it than that. you women are quite perplexed and you have written -- no male and -- >> can you ask the question? >> my ask question -- my last question is do you realize that women were quite weak? this is why advantage was taken on them? >> i didn't hear the last 5. >> the irish catholics, i write a lot in the book about how there is nothing said about african-americans that wasn't said about irish catholics in the nineteenth and early twentyth century. every stereotype about effort and americans to diminish irish catholics, a strong native impulse in the country to describe irish catholics as lazy, dirty, drunk, insecure families, i went to the tenement
museum in new york and this was a long time ago, being told in new york, in an >> host: century landlords preferred black people to the irish because the irish were so dirty and disorganized and could get the apartment clean after they lived in a. we bore the brunt of those stereotypes. >> white people of black people -- >> we have to give the microphone over. >> my question is to the last speaker. >> you mean the white people. >> it is a question about the terminology, white, black, what have you. it is a very provocative -- to write a book entitled book but in listening to you speak i didn't get the impression that you really have a firm definition of white and black versus so much as maybe you are talking about class or some
other connotation. i guess the question is are you really talking about white, black or just people where they are, what they are, mostly along class lines and educational lines. >> really good question. i am accepting the basic definition of white and black in this country even though both are socially destructive definitions and they have been very fluid. the irish were considered white in some ages, jews were not considered white. we have constructed white mess and blackness. the class played a big role in these and we should pay more attention to class for sure. >> my question is for hanna rosin 11. i was wondering when you were researching your book and talking to different women and. to you that around the country i know you said you found a lot of nontraditional families in that you have a lot of single moms and things like that.
and other nontraditional grouping like single moms who live together or -- anything like that. something happening in the new economy and new types of relationships. >> the book doesn't get deeply into policy implications but one of the main things i came out of this research thinking is we have a really narrow definition of what family is given how much family is changing because americans basically love marriage unlike europeans who group together and don't get married anymore so the fact we love marriage means maintain the social policy, very little idea of a marriage, two married people living under a roof with a child when the american family has constructed now are wildly different than they were even 15 years ago. that is the subject for further
study, and statisticians, statistics are deep into this, we don't have an accurate picture because there is no easy way to measure and how do we get way to measure it in this country? >> the question for hanna rosin, do you see a similar trend in other developed countries in terms of share of the work force? >> not just developed countries. this phenomenon takes different forms in different places in the world and even places where you would be pretty surprised. got an amazing letter from gaza, i am not going to find it while i am sitting here. and amazing letter, women are outpacing men in education on every continent except africa. there are more women graduates in saudi arabia than men because saudi arabia is invested in these universities but the washington post and a front-page story, no place for them to go. so it manifests itself in a weird way of protesting or
different things popping up but in the middle east you have the sense that women are getting educated and that is dangerous, namely that 14-year-old afghan girl who got shot, she got shot because there is a huge trend toward educating women in the middle east but they haven't resolved what it means. the country i write about in the book is korea because south korea is extremely patriarchal but has all these women graduating and entering the work force and because the social crisis in the country so that is the country i listen to. >> this is a clandestine way to end the pan >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring lye coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy e sveltes and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web
site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> an update from capitol hill now where lawmakers just ended meetings here on the fiscal cliff. and "the washington post" blog, a quote from senator joe lieberman when asked as he exited the senate democratic caucus about a deal, he said he'd be with shocked if a deal was struck today, that the parties are much farther apart than he hoped they'd be by now. and a tweet from one of the reporters here says senator reid makes an offer to gop, doesn't say what it is, and says e republicans' offer of calculating inflation with the chain cpi was an act of desperation. we'll bring you back to this if the senate comes back into session. in the meantime, we return to our regular booktv programming. >> and now joining us again on booktv is senator rand paul. his second book, "government bullies," senator, who are the
bullies? >> well, all throughout your government there's 41 different agencies who carry firearms now in the government, and you say, well, i don't mind the police or the fbi. well, the department of agriculture has a s.w.a.t. team. the fish and wildlife have a s.w.a.t. team. in fact, the fish and wildlife raided gibson guitar with guns drawn, took all their computer equipment and their wood and then doesn't let them know what they were -- didn't let them know what they were accused of for a year, but when they finally accused them of something, it was breaking a foreign regulation. a law in india they were accused of breaking and penalized in the u.s. for breaking a law in india. those are the kind of stories we write about. >> host: how come we haven't heard about that before? >> guest: some of them you have heard. one is the case of a couple who were selling bunnies in a little town in missouri. they were fined $90,000 for having the wrong permit. the government said, hey, you can pay on our web site $90,000,
but if you don't pay in 30 days, you'll owe us $3.1 million. this is the kind of stuff that your government's doing to bully people, and we frankly think it needs to stop. they're doing the same with confiscating people's land and saying you can't build on it because it's a wetland even though there is no water or stream or pond on the land. >> host: so as a senator, what can you do to change policy? >> guest: we've looked at some of these things, and we've now constructed legislation to try to fix them. so like on the wetlands we say the clean water act says you can't discharge pollutants into navigable waters. i don't have any problem with that, but your backyard is not a navigable water, and dirt is not a pollutant. so we try to redesign the clean water act to make sure they're not putting people in prison for putting clean dirt in their backyard. and that's what's been happening. a woman in southern mississippi got 84 months in federal prison
without parole for putting clean dirt on her own land. >> host: senator, when you talk to your colleagues about these incidents, what do you hear? >> guest: some are horrified. about eight of them, who signed on and cosponsored by -- my bill to fix it. but when you tell the american people how the government's harassing, abusing and even imprisoning people for selling raw milk, you can go to an amish farmer, some of these amish farmers have been arrested and threatened with jail because they're selling milk to tear neighbors. their neighbors. >> host: senator paul, will you be taking these issues nationwide? >> guest: we're going to be talking about it everywhere anybody will listen, because we think government has gotten out of control, government's run amok, and government's become a bully. and someone's got to stand up to a bully. >> host: november 2012, postelection, what did the 2012
elections clarify for you? >> guest: boy, that we as republicans need to do something to grow as a party. we're in danger of becoming a dinosaur if we don't figure out what people want out on the west coast, new england, around the great lakes. they're solid blue. until we figure out what people want, we're not going to win again as a party. >> host: what do you think they want? >> guest: i think they are conservative, they think we should balance our budget, but i also think they don't think we should be at war everywhere all the time. i think they want a little more tolerant policy as far as putting people in prison for possession of marijuana. i think they'd like to see more local judges take care of that, less prison time. i'm not in favor of encouraging people to use marijuana, but i also don't think we should be putting people in jail for it either. >> host: now, this is your second book. we did a long form interview on your first book. you can watch that at booktv.org, just click rand paul into the search function. the premise of that first book?
>> guest: the first book was the tea party goes to washington. it was about the tea party movement. i think it was an extraordinary movement, probably the biggest movement to happen in politics in our country in 40 years. a lot of people were showing up, hundreds of thousands of people showed up at rallies. and it really transformed the way we think about things in the sense that people began to question whether or not the law that was passed by washington, obamacare as one big example, whether laws were constitutional. whether the constitution gave the government to power to do certain things. this hadn't come up really since the 1930s. >> host: but, again, the november 2012 elections -- >> guest: i don't want to talk about 2012. i'm tired of 2012. let's talk about the future. 2012 wasn't very good for us, and we're going to have to figure out a way to appeal to a bigger electorate. >> host: are you running for president? [laughter] >> guest: that's classified. i can't -- your clearance is not high enough to hear that right now. no, i want to be